“Don’t Panic Mr Mainwaring!!”

Is Northern Rock the new Credit Anstalt? .

It’s a spreading meme and I’m probably one of many thousands of bloggers making this comparison this morning.The British media is ramping up for a full blown panic – could the impending collapse of this overextendxed and undercapitalised bank be just the first of many dominoes to topple in our precariously-balanced economy?

Grimly satisfying as it is to see baby-boomers desperately trying to get their comfy pensions and the profits from their hiousing speculations out of a crumbling bank, unfortunately this won’t just affect the comfortable middle classes.

The knock-on effect will be broad and deep: so many are employed in the financial services and derivative industries that if the panic continues and more banks get into trouble, even if there is bailout and the situation stabilises there will be a massive retrenching and many, many people will be out of a job, from call-centrre operators to cleaners to copier technicians to consultants to sysadmins. If doesn’t stabilise… well, then all bets are off, so to speak.

The UK government’s spokesdroids and our laughable chancellor Alistair Darling are desperately trying to convince us in increasingly shaky voices that it’s not a bank crash – as the public sees right through their feeble protestations and continues to queue for its cash. Reportedly 6.1 billion 1 ibillion 2 billion pounds has been withdrawn over the last couple of days. It’s Financial Contagion in action

What is financial contagion

“When the thunderclap comes, there is no time to cover the ears” –
– Sun Tzu

A large number of bank failures occurred in the 1930s, accompanied by declines in asset markets, mostly triggered by common adverse business conditions. This seriously weakened the US financial system, and left it unable to support economic activity effectively through financing. Consequently, there was a continuing vicious circle of economic decline and financial weakness.

When asset bubbles burst, or economies suffer a severe downturn, weak banks can become insolvent, and their failure then further weakens other banks causing the problem to spread.

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget on September 23, 1998 Alan Greenspan said:
“Developed countries’ banks are highly leveraged, but subject to sufficiently effective supervision both by counterparties and regulatory authorities, so that, in most countries, banking problems do not escalate into international financial crises. Most banks in emerging market economies are also highly leveraged, but their supervision often has not proved adequate to forestall failures and a general financial crisis. The failure of some banks is highly contagious to other banks and businesses that deal with them, as the Asian crisis has so effectively demonstrated.”

But regulation and supervision of individual financial institutions, however much they may be effective, may not necessarily guarantee the stability of the financial system as a whole. Problems in one bank may spread to other parts of the financial system by the common involvement of other banks in one particular risky business area that turns bad, through counterparty exposure to events such as the Baring Brothers crisis of 1995 or the Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) crisis of 1998, or loss of confidence in one institution may result in funding problems for other institutions if they are perceived to have something in common.

Banks are interconnected through interbank deposits, loans, payment systems, and common markets. An adverse event that drives one bank into insolvency may then cascade to other interconnected banks by generating losses for them. If the losses generated for the next bank in the chain exceed their availability of capital to absorb the losses, then a domino effect of contagion can occur that threatens the whole financial system.

In May 1931, the Austrian Credit-Anstalt bank failed after customers withdrew funds on worries over the soundness of the bank’s loans. A cascade of financial problems ensued, which contributed a great deal to the economic problems of the 1930s.

It started when the bank’s depositors grew concerned about the Austrian economy and the state of the bank’s non-performing loans. After it failed, general confidence in banks was damaged and there were runs on banks in Czechoslovakia, Germany, Hungary, and Poland. The top four banks in Germany declared themselves bankrupt and the Berlin Stock Exchange closed for two months. British investors in Europe and exporters lost money, the UK suffered a rapidly growing deficit, and foreign investors withdrew, deserting the Pound Sterling for gold and other currencies. The British government raised taxes to try to restore confidence, but investor confidence collapsed, and the pound was allowed to float, declining by over 20% against gold.
Comparisons have been made between the Credit-Anstalt crisis and potential risks in China’s banking system:”

More…

Even if the Bank of England does manage to maintain confidence in the short-term, this is a globalised economy and the US debt situation is so precarious that it could still tip us all into a worldwide depression.

Recession, resource wars and climate change, what a prospect.

I’m going out into my garden to sit in the last of the summer sun and to try not to think about it any more for today but perhaps I will think about investing in a wheelbarrow.

War! What Is It Good For? Keeping Pundits’ Careers Afloat…

Truer words have seldom been spoken than Michael Tomasky’s in this morning’s Grauniad, on the way the talking heads provided the impetus for the illegal invasion and how they continue to drive the Iraq war along, despite all the evidence that it’s lost:

[…]

Cynosure though he will be today, Petraeus in fact has only a limited role to play in seeing to it that the US continue its mad engagement. The stars of that dispiriting drama will be the phalanx of foreign policy experts based in Washington, who will, in the wake of the general’s testimony, fan out across the cable channels and op-ed pages, arguing that giving the surge one more chance is the only “serious” option.

These, you see, are the “serious” foreign policy people. It’s good work if you can get it. You may be thinking that you become a serious foreign policy person by often being right about foreign policy. But this just shows how little you know about how these things work.

No – you become a serious foreign-policy person in Washington by dint of meeting two criteria. First, you should adopt the most hawkish position you can plausibly adopt, so that you come across as appropriately “tough-minded”. Second, you must note what all the other serious foreign policy people are saying and take care to ensure that your position is sufficiently indistinguishable from theirs for you to be lumped in with them when the time comes for the Washington Post to write a group profile of Washington’s serious tough-minded foreign policy people.

At the moment the tv talking heads’re nominally Republican: give it a couple of years and they’ll be equally nominal Democrats. The new pundit cohort is practicing its on-air persona already (Ezra, Matt Y. et al – yes, I’m looking at you).

Either way, nominal Republicans or nominal Dems, they’re paid pundits first and foremost and they don’t want that to change. Why throttle the goose that lays such golden eggs?

For skilled practitioners of the art, this tends to work out marvellously, career-wise. Take Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon, the two emblematic seriousistas of the Bush age. Both are scholars at the Brookings Institution, a centre-left thinktank, and both are nominal Democrats. Both were also early fans of the Iraq war. Pollack achieved special notoriety with his book The Threatening Storm, which persuaded many a liberal who might otherwise have looked askance at a war undertaken by the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney war to support it.

Here in America, we’re taught that in the realm of ideas, no less than of products of commerce, the free market sorts everything out – it rewards the good ideas and punishes the bad ones, and at the end of the day fairness will obtain.

Excuse me while I splutter with laughter.

Well, the famous invisible hand seems to have left the world of foreign policy seriousness untouched, because Pollack and O’Hanlon, far from paying any price for their errors, are just as celebrated as ever. They published a major op-ed piece in the New York Times in late July touting the progress being made in Iraq, and O’Hanlon’s byline appeared again on the page a mere five weeks later. This week, cable bookers will be calling them so often that they might as well set up cots in the studios.

Of course, all this hasn’t worked out too well for the country or the world. But that’s tolerable in Washington, because the important thing here is that the status quo should not be disrupted.

Read more…

Well done Mr Tomasky, but how long has it taken you bloody journalists and pundits to come to this point of view?

Do a word search on this blog and look for ‘status quo’ and you’ll see that “the status quo should not be disrupted” is what I and many, many others have for years been saying is the driver of US domestic and foreign policy, regardless of individual party affiliation.

Do keep up – if only you and your media colleagues had noticed this and spoken out like this 5 years or so ago we might not be in this godawful mess. now

Does Reading The Daily Mail Make You A Bigot?

Anecdotal evidence says yes, yes and thrice yes, but one self-confessed liberal documentary filmmaker has gone for empirical evidence (and a a cheap and derivative film topic), by confining himself entirely for 28 days to reading the Daily Mail – sample news item this morning:

Why blue-eyed boys (and girls) are so brilliant

The colour of your eyes could determine your achievements in life, say scientists. They claim those with blue eyes are more likely to sparkle academically than those with brown. They are more intelligent and gain more qualifications because they study more effectively and perform better in exams…

– as his sole media and news source and seeing what happened. I think we can guess…

Four weeks isn’t long though and it meant actually giving money to buy the paper too.

If he’d really wanted evidence he could’ve gone to any B&Q on any Sunday morning (because Mail readers’re forever reinforcing their personal fortresses) and listened in to the customers, who’ve been reading it as their sole source of news for twenty years or more. “…immigrants, blah, bloody women, blah, political correctness, blah, Moslems, blah, Britney Spears, blah, kids today, blah…” Or you could just watch any recent edition of BBC’s former flagship news show Panorama, as revamped and Mailised by Jeremy Vine.

Still, it might be an interesting programme. Or not. The Daily Mail Diet will be on Al Gore’s Current TV on Wednesday and will be youtubed or bittorrented at some point with luck.